Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Empty supposition. Can't attack the science, so let's attack the practitioners. With a tasty garnish of media-bashing.

I wasn't the one suggesting it's righteous to fire scientists who don't follow the eco-faith.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I haven't seen any indication that this controversy has been reconciled. So why not publish in the "clearinghouse" of climate science that you call the IPCC?

I specifically said that the IPCC is not the "clearinghouse"

Perhaps this is one source of your confusion? And where have you looked for reconciliation of the "controversy"?

After all, and despite the protests from the hysterical crowd, the issue is not really whether the science is "settled," but rather whether the science is "settled enough" for policymakers to act on it (and voters to buy into it, quite literally).

Good thing those goalposts are so nice 'n light then. Everyone loves moving them.

As COVID has amply proved, it's distressingly easy to whip up public opposition to good science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I wasn't the one suggesting it's righteous to fire scientists who don't follow the eco-faith.

Me neither.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I specifically said that the IPCC is not the "clearinghouse"

Perhaps this is one source of your confusion? And where have you looked for reconciliation of the "controversy"?

Good thing those goalposts are so nice 'n light then. Everyone loves moving them.

As COVID has amply proved, it's distressingly easy to whip up public opposition to good science.

Whoops sorry. Not a "clearinghouse." Something else?

By "reconciliation" I mean an explanation for variances in scientific opinion that can be explained, justified, reasoned away . . . reconciled. In the example given, we simply have different opinions being drawn by different scientists using the same data. You can tally up your votes, tout your "consensus," vilify your "denialists," but the fact remains that there are recognized experts who don't go along. And many of these are distinguished scientists in other disciplines (like physics). At least some of this contrary scientific opinion needs to be "reconciled" before masses of voters are going to sign up for the agenda.

Even Jackdale acknowledged the science isn't "settled." Gord repeatedly points out that no science is ever "settled." No moving of goalposts, just sensible policymaking based on the science being "settled enough" to incur the societal and economic costs in exchange for the hoped for benefits. No different from Covid or any other policy which relies on scientific evidence which may not be dispositive. Or do you think the science knows everything there is to know about Covid? You're creating another strawman which hasn't been raised, and which is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... the fact remains that there are recognized experts who don't go along. And many of these are distinguished scientists in other disciplines (like physics). At least some of this contrary scientific opinion needs to be "reconciled" before masses of voters are going to sign up for the agenda.

It's possible to find an expert to disagree with almost anything. Dr Spencer doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, for example. You cannot reconcile or justify anything, if that's the benchmark.

In the case of climate change, amplifying what dissention there is is successfully blocking or delaying some important decisions.

Even Jackdale acknowledged the science isn't "settled." Gord repeatedly points out that no science is ever "settled." No moving of goalposts, just sensible policymaking based on the science being "settled enough" to incur the societal and economic costs in exchange for the hoped for benefits. No different from Covid or any other policy which relies on scientific evidence which may not be dispositive. Or do you think the science knows everything there is to know about Covid? You're creating another strawman which hasn't been raised, and which is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

There are many useful parallels between climate change and COVID, not least those who have denied or downplayed them for political advantage.

... but since you're all touchy about that, the discussion yet again threatens to drop a wheel into a well-worn and tiresome rut. So... pass.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's possible to find an expert to disagree with almost anything. Dr Spencer doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, for example. You cannot reconcile or justify anything, if that's the benchmark.

Another great example of believing what you've been told as opposed to acquiring a deeper level of knowledge on your own. If you're going to attribute, why not first go to the primary source? As usual, it's much more complicated than you (and your bias) suggests. Why not find out what Dr. Spencer believes by first asking Dr. Spencer?

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01...google-search/

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

I view the problem not as the intelligent being too individualistic, but as people in general being too conformist.

Um, sure, right, that is it. It must be that conforming to the overwhelming mass of data is the wrong approach.

And please, please stop pretending you are in any way functioning in any way rationally or scientifically. You have long ago decided what you think and you cherry pick your way backwards to your pre-ordained 'conclusions'. You arrive at your 'conclusions' using the same approach Archbishop Ussher 'confirmed' the date of the creation. Backwards.

Embarrassing.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... Why not find out what Dr. Spencer believes by first asking Dr. Spencer?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01...google-search/

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Dr. Spencer

... The scientific evidence for a “creator” is, in my opinion, stronger than the evidence that everything around us is just one gigantic cosmic accident. I have no trouble stating that — and defending it — based upon science alone. No need to quote the Bible ...

See also:

“Faith-Based Evolution” ~ by Roy Spence
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20090908...spx?id=080805I

“Testing Truth with an Open Mind” ~ by Dr. Roy Spencer
➥ http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another great example of believing what you've been told as opposed to acquiring a deeper level of knowledge on your own.

Reminds me of Halloween, people parading around pretending they are something they are not. You do not have 'a deeper level of knowledge'. It is delusional to think that you have a deeper level of knowledge than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

Just like Steve Jobs, who (tragically) was sure he knew more about liver cancer than those lemming-like doctors, who uncritically accepted the consensus about liver cancer, and so he instead adopted nostrums advocated by delusional knuckleheads (probably found on Internet forums).

Just like the guy who sits on his sofa and is sure he could have made that play and thrown that touchdown pass. He just knows it. But he doesn't work out, he doesn't practice, he doesn't devote his life to it, and he doesn't actually put anything on the line. He just knows it. And he revels in telling everyone that he just knows it.

I must confess I don't understand it - but these days there seems to be a social disease of people who insist on objecting to knowledge gleaned from people who are more knowledgeable than are they themselves. They are just 'sure' they know things that are contrary. The harsh truth is that knowledge today is so broad and so deep that none of us can be but amateurs in nearly all of it and have no choice but to trust and accept broad-based, established consensus. The only alternative is a minor form of delusional madness - such as we have witnessed in this forum.

That we live in a complex world with vast arenas of specialized knowledge is apparently just too much for some people. They rail against it, in the dark, utterly clueless as to how clueless they actually are.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.

See also:

“Faith-Based Evolution” ~ by Roy Spence
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20090908...spx?id=080805I

“Testing Truth with an Open Mind” ~ by Dr. Roy Spencer
➥ The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer

Hard to find a better example of an effort to distort a well-respected scientist's beliefs and opinions by selectively quoting a sentence or two. But I'm sure you're not alone, as this is exactly the sort of snippet relied on by plenty of other biased sources to smear the proponent of a position rather than challenging that position directly. Best to read the entire piece, but the least you could do is provide a modicum of context:

". . . the accusation is often that the Bible-believing scientist “rejects settled science”, in my case the naturalistic “explanation” for the origin of life. How can anyone trust a climate scientist who rejects “settled science”?

Except this claim reveals an appalling lack of knowledge on the part of the accuser. In general, nothing in science is ever settled. And in particular, no one knows how life arose from non-living matter. It remains a mystery today.

Belief in the naturalistic origin of life is just as religious as the belief in a creator. Even well-known evolutionists have admitted this.

The scientific evidence for a “creator” is, in my opinion, stronger than the evidence that everything around us is just one gigantic cosmic accident. I have no trouble stating that — and defending it — based upon science alone. No need to quote the Bible."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

* * *

That we live in a complex world with vast arenas of specialized knowledge is apparently just too much for some people. They rail against it, in the dark, utterly clueless as to how clueless they actually are.

AGREED!!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another great example of believing what you've been told as opposed to acquiring a deeper level of knowledge on your own. If you're going to attribute, why not first go to the primary source? As usual, it's much more complicated than you (and your bias) suggests. Why not find out what Dr. Spencer believes by first asking Dr. Spencer?

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01...google-search/

I read that long ago. You know this.

You went after the bouncy red ball () instead of the broader point that one can find experts and people of knowledge who are in opposition to just about anything you can name, so their mere existence doesn't mean that everything is not "settled", when it comes to acting on them.

My bias - again I've said many times that I have no reason to think that Spencer's work in his field has been tainted by his religious beliefs. When he steps out of his own lane to make pronouncements about climate change... I think that his beliefs and public alignments require we use a grain or two of salt when considering those pronouncements.

Such as:

Originally Posted by Exile

"Belief in the naturalistic origin of life is just as religious as the belief in a creator. Even well-known evolutionists have admitted this."

It's true that the exact mechanisms by which random soup of organic compounds becomes self-reproducing life have not been determined or experimentally duplicated. It's hard to find lab assistants who will stick around for two years, let alone a couple million. Nonetheless we know quite a bit about how some of those reactions could occur, and how some compounds self-organize. And Dr Spencer is wrong about there being evidence for a Creator. Anyone who says that is either substituting belief for thought, or stumped by the hard work of studying and tracing the evolution of sophisticated specialization like eyeballs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB6zdOnFYzk

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speaking of which, did I read in this or one of these other threads that the latest IPCCv.6 did not include dissenting (or skeptical) opinions from otherwise qualified scientists?

What on earth would lead you to say this? Gossip? Rumors? Your beloved Dr. Ridd's media appearance?

Instead, read the report. It has a very robust discussion of certainty and uncertainty and in innumerable places it is less than certain.

Here is the highest level conclusion:
A.1.
It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.

That conclusion stands, in spite of some components of the underlying data being less than certain or to some measurable degree uncertain. It is the conclusion you are forced to accept, if the data are taken altogether (instead of cherry picked).

But you'll dance around it, I know full well by now.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I wasn't the one suggesting it's righteous to fire scientists who don't follow the eco-faith.

No one has. This is a canard.
What scientists get fired for is being incompetent practitioners of the scientific method. What the conspiracy theorists always ignore is that the best way to win a Nobel prize is to overturn convention or consensus. That is done with the most rigorous science and robust data. The opposite of everything raised by the deniers.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

No one has. This is a canard.

What scientists get fired for is being incompetent practitioners of the scientific method. What the conspiracy theorists always ignore is that the best way to win a Nobel prize is to overturn convention or consensus. That is done with the most rigorous science and robust data. The opposite of everything raised by the deniers.

Ridd got fired for questioning the quality control of the research being conducted under the banner of his then employer.